[[en:User:Zephram Stark]] was recently blocked:
* 13:18, 8 May 2006 Jimbo Wales blocked "Zephram Stark (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (trolling, banned user on en.wikipedia)
I am not aware of the situation on en.wikipedia, though I do know that this user is blocked on commons.wikimedia, and has used sockpuppets to evade the block. However, this user has not been vandalising en.wikibooks, and the only thing that I could find that resembles "trolling" are a few allegations about sockpuppets, not anything which disrupted en.wikibooks.
It appears that the only reason for this block concerns trouble on en.wikipedia, and of such trouble I have no knowledge. (Maybe someone could describe to me what happened?)
I think that this user should be unblocked immediately or the block be shortened to 1 week or less. What does everyone think? -- [[en:User:Kernigh]] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
Kernigh wrote:
[[en:User:Zephram Stark]] was recently blocked:
- 13:18, 8 May 2006 Jimbo Wales blocked "Zephram Stark (contribs)" with an
expiry time of infinite (trolling, banned user on en.wikipedia)
I am not aware of the situation on en.wikipedia, though I do know that this user is blocked on commons.wikimedia, and has used sockpuppets to evade the block. However, this user has not been vandalising en.wikibooks, and the only thing that I could find that resembles "trolling" are a few allegations about sockpuppets, not anything which disrupted en.wikibooks.
It appears that the only reason for this block concerns trouble on en.wikipedia, and of such trouble I have no knowledge. (Maybe someone could describe to me what happened?)
I think that this user should be unblocked immediately or the block be shortened to 1 week or less. What does everyone think? -- [[en:User:Kernigh]] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
I have dealt with this issue in the past, so far as there has been a very significant community of people with visseral hatred of this particular user. I don't understand completely what the justifications have been, but yes, on en.wikibooks he has been a fairly quiet user and hasn't really been too much of a problem. The largest "problem" he created was with the Social Postulutes Wikibook and a few other books of a similar vein. That these books could be considered original research, perhaps, but that is something that can and was dealt with on the VfD pages.
I think these actions are encouraging the creation of a troll rather than trying to deal with people with very different life philosophies. I also see this as part of wheel warring that is going on regarding this user's actions on Wikipedia, but unfortunately spilling over into Wikibooks. I have instead tried to be very cordial and try to discourage this user from doing the supposedly disruptive activities on Wikibooks using communications as a tool, rather than trying to invoke administrative tools.
Wikibooks has become a very hostile environment to work in, and unfortunately I think it has aquired some critical mass of deletionists lately whose opinions are changing the nature of Wikibooks that was one of the major attractions to the project in the past. Decisions used to be much more reasoned and weren't made in such a hurry, and all I can hope is that this current wave of culling is going to burn out and that Wikibooks will eventually return to the way it was in terms of being much more rational in its decisions than Wikipedia has been. I also agree with you Kernigh that if a user is to be banned on a project like Wikibooks, they should be banned because of their actions on that particular project, and not because of some universal action and policy that was decided on another project, including Wikipedia. Particularly because all I can get is very biased and POV information from Wikipedia of the whole issue anyway.
Kernigh wrote:
[[en:User:Zephram Stark]] was recently blocked:
- 13:18, 8 May 2006 Jimbo Wales blocked "Zephram Stark (contribs)" with an
expiry time of infinite (trolling, banned user on en.wikipedia)
snip
It appears that the only reason for this block concerns trouble on en.wikipedia, and of such trouble I have no knowledge. (Maybe someone could describe to me what happened?)
I think that this user should be unblocked immediately or the block be shortened to 1 week or less. What does everyone think? -- [[en:User:Kernigh]] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
I suppose this depends on whether one views the wikis as subprojects of one big project and community hosted by Wikimedia or as separate projects.
Personally I think the individual projects have separate communities and identies, so I agree with you. If this user has caused no problems on wikibooks then this is a case of unnecessary persecution probably intensifying problems in the future.
However, there are a large number of people who have chimed in that Wikiversity should be defined around the other existing projects so there is absolutely no duplication. In this view we essentially have a single project. So once a handle or puppet is banned in one place perhaps the ban should be in force everywhere else.
Regards, lazyquasar
On 6/13/06, Michael R. Irwin michael_irwin@verizon.net wrote:
Kernigh wrote:
[[en:User:Zephram Stark]] was recently blocked:
- 13:18, 8 May 2006 Jimbo Wales blocked "Zephram Stark (contribs)" with an
expiry time of infinite (trolling, banned user on en.wikipedia)
snip
It appears that the only reason for this block concerns trouble on en.wikipedia, and of such trouble I have no knowledge. (Maybe someone could describe to me what happened?)
I think that this user should be unblocked immediately or the block be shortened to 1 week or less. What does everyone think? -- [[en:User:Kernigh]] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
I suppose this depends on whether one views the wikis as subprojects of one big project and community hosted by Wikimedia or as separate projects.
Personally I think the individual projects have separate communities and identies, so I agree with you. If this user has caused no problems on wikibooks then this is a case of unnecessary persecution probably intensifying problems in the future.
However, there are a large number of people who have chimed in that Wikiversity should be defined around the other existing projects so there is absolutely no duplication. In this view we essentially have a single project. So once a handle or puppet is banned in one place perhaps the ban should be in force everywhere else.
Regards, lazyquasar
Where did Kernigh write this? Zephram Stark will not be unblocked in the near future. --LV
Lord Voldemort wrote:
Where did Kernigh write this? Zephram Stark will not be unblocked in the near future. --LV
I should point out that, in general, blocks on en.wikipedia do not extend to other projects, and the English Wikipedia ArbCom has specifically declined to get involved in other places.
At the same time, we are still thank goodness not so hyperlegal about cross-project matters that we can't exercise good judgment in individual cases. Blocking Zephram Stark from Wikibooks *before* he causes trouble is more or less a no-brainer.
In other cases, of course, a block on en.wikipedia need not also extend to wikibooks, depending on the judgment of the community.
--Jimbo
Lord Voldemort wrote:
On 6/13/06, Michael R. Irwin michael_irwin@verizon.net wrote:
Kernigh wrote:
[[en:User:Zephram Stark]] was recently blocked:
- 13:18, 8 May 2006 Jimbo Wales blocked "Zephram Stark (contribs)" with an
expiry time of infinite (trolling, banned user on en.wikipedia)
snip
It appears that the only reason for this block concerns trouble on en.wikipedia, and of such trouble I have no knowledge. (Maybe someone could describe to me what happened?)
I think that this user should be unblocked immediately or the block be shortened to 1 week or less. What does everyone think? -- [[en:User:Kernigh]] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
I suppose this depends on whether one views the wikis as subprojects of one big project and community hosted by Wikimedia or as separate projects.
Personally I think the individual projects have separate communities and identies, so I agree with you. If this user has caused no problems on wikibooks then this is a case of unnecessary persecution probably intensifying problems in the future.
However, there are a large number of people who have chimed in that Wikiversity should be defined around the other existing projects so there is absolutely no duplication. In this view we essentially have a single project. So once a handle or puppet is banned in one place perhaps the ban should be in force everywhere else.
Regards, lazyquasar
Where did Kernigh write this? Zephram Stark will not be unblocked in the near future. --LV
I would be curious over what sort of problems this user has made on Wikibooks. While he has done some things that I think approach the limits of "original research", he has not been a vandal on Wikibooks nor has caused any other signficant problems. Certainly being banned on Wikipedia should not be cause to be banned on Wikibooks by itself. This is a disturbing development to me in this sense. Show me damage that this user has done on Wikibooks, including perhaps the alleged trolling, and I might support a ban. In addition, try to demonstrate (even though I think it is likely) that this is even the same user on Wikibooks that it is on Wikipedia.
On 6/14/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
In addition, try to demonstrate (even though I think it is likely) that this is even the same user on Wikibooks that it is on Wikipedia.
Are you now just playing coy? --LV
Lord Voldemort wrote:
On 6/14/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
In addition, try to demonstrate (even though I think it is likely) that this is even the same user on Wikibooks that it is on Wikipedia.
Are you now just playing coy? --LV
Why did Jimbo have to get involved on this level? This wasn't needed on Wikibooks. Period. Unless you can point to a discussion to try and block this user on Wikibooks because of his action on Wikibooks.
I agree. Unless this user was blocked from all Wikimedia projects by the board, a block on one project shouldn't mean a block on all. After all, we have very few enforced policies, and one of them is "Wikibooks is not Wikipedia".
John (Gentgeen)
--- Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
Why did Jimbo have to get involved on this level? This wasn't needed on Wikibooks. Period. Unless you can point to a discussion to try and block this user on Wikibooks because of his action on Wikibooks.
-- Robert Scott Horning
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 15/06/06, John Pozniak gentgeen@yahoo.com wrote:
I agree. Unless this user was blocked from all Wikimedia projects by the board, a block on one project shouldn't mean a block on all. After all, we have very few enforced policies, and one of them is "Wikibooks is not Wikipedia".
Just an observation from a relative wikibooks-newbie, there seems to be a pretty hostile attitude to Wikipedia. Don't you trust the Wikipedia community to make the right decision?
Coming from Commons...if a user was blocked in another project for copyright violations, I would be very prepared to block them if they did the same thing there. If an image was deleted in a project for having no source/being a copyright violation, I would trust that project's decision and delete it on Commons too, if there was no new compelling evidence.
But copyright is a different issue to what is essentially being blocked for social reasons (trolling)...OK it's probably not appropriate to just automatically block anyone who has blocked elsewhere. But don't you think it might be useful to find out why they were blocked elsewhere? If you could save yourselves a lot of potential hassle (some vandals are extremely disruptive), wouldn't you consider it at least? I mean it's not like Wikipedia is this totally separate thing and they're all strangers, that's all.
cheers, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 15/06/06, John Pozniak gentgeen@yahoo.com wrote:
I agree. Unless this user was blocked from all Wikimedia projects by the board, a block on one project shouldn't mean a block on all. After all, we have very few enforced policies, and one of them is "Wikibooks is not Wikipedia".
Just an observation from a relative wikibooks-newbie, there seems to be a pretty hostile attitude to Wikipedia. Don't you trust the Wikipedia community to make the right decision?
Not for wikibooks. They have a huge user base and edit wars and wheel wars are common. A common tactic built into the site unfortunately from the start was "label and lynch". If someone wants to bail out of that environment in the middle of a conflict it is beneficial to everyone to allow them to behave civilly relative to the new environment. The controversy goes away. If we allow following between sites which are inevitably starting to drift slightly in cultural matters and operational methods then we have to deal with all of these other projects hassles. Some of which for us would not be hassles if people were simply left alone to start over in a new community with a different purpose.
Consider a troll who insists on inserting too much information for an encyclopedia but when shows up here is creating useful content and working well with others the enhance the collective output.
We do not want to take this resolved situation and relaunch into a multisite troll war. Let sleeping dogs lie, maybe they will stay asleep.
Coming from Commons...if a user was blocked in another project for copyright violations, I would be very prepared to block them if they did the same thing there. If an image was deleted in a project for having no source/being a copyright violation, I would trust that project's decision and delete it on Commons too, if there was no new compelling evidence.
If you do this at a site where I am a regular I would probably conclude you are the problem.
So now you and I have a problem.
You and the "troll" relative to the other site have a problem.
We, you and me, are sucked into the original "troll" and the other person from the other site who followed or stalked (see wiki stalking at Wikipedia, it is frowned on to follow people between topics or group clusters at Wikipedia, they would rather have the problem go away if it will than waste time escalating it and involving a bunch of new people) the alleged troll who is undoubtedly presenting themselves as the persecuted to our new site here.
See how it can escalate?
But copyright is a different issue to what is essentially being blocked for social reasons (trolling)...OK it's probably not appropriate to just automatically block anyone who has blocked elsewhere. But don't you think it might be useful to find out why they were blocked elsewhere? If you could save yourselves a lot of potential hassle (some vandals are extremely disruptive), wouldn't you consider it at least? I mean it's not like Wikipedia is this totally separate thing and they're all strangers, that's all.
It is my conclusion that it would be more work sorting out conflicting claims on the other site where I may be a complete stranger to their ways and certainly do not have the historical data to figure what the real problems might be.
Take a look at the Arbcom proceedings sometime. You might be amazed at the level of effort that goes into attempting to treat people in controversal conflicts fairly. I was amazed and impressed at the level of effort that was going into being fair and effective and resolving controversy somehow and taking responsibily for mandate resolution methods to the parties.
As Wikibooks continues to grow in content and size of community and volume of casual users and vandals or trolls it may or may not need to emulate the Arbcom. Keep your fingers crossed.
regards, lazyquasar
BTW cf. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Staff_lounge#Banned_WP_editor_Primeti... which seems to have been accepted without question. That's more the kind of thing I was talking about...(again this is more copyright related, not social behaviour, and lazyquasar made a good point that in some cases people can "start anew".) I mean yes each project has its own community but I don't think it's beneficial to treat them like strangers. In situations like this we can work together and save each other some hassle.
Heh, imagine if WoW showed up at a new project and we had this attitude... "Give the man a chance! He might have reformed!" :)
cheers Brianna
There is a difference between a vandal and a troll. A vandal is a childish user who makes himself happy by destroying the work of others. A toll is someone who doesn't work well with others, or is prone to attitude problems.
Wikibooks has a very different culture than Wikipedia. Part of that is based on how the projects see themselves. Wikibooks "feels" like a community of somewhat independant projects, fairly loosly connected. Therefore, what happens in a single book has little effect on the majority of writers and users who will never see it as it doesn't touch what they're working on or reading. Wikipedia sees itself as a unified whole. Every article in the encyclopedia is a part of a closely connected "one", so each article impacts all the others.
Contributors who may have a tendancy to personality conflicts will have less triggers at Wikibooks. Hopefully, by the time they get into a potentially troll-creating situation, they are more likely to appriciate the wiki culture and collaborative content creation, and be less likely to become a troll.
John (Gentgeen)
--- Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
BTW cf.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Staff_lounge#Banned_WP_editor_Primeti...
which seems to have been accepted without question. That's more the kind of thing I was talking about...(again this is more copyright related, not social behaviour, and lazyquasar made a good point that in some cases people can "start anew".) I mean yes each project has its own community but I don't think it's beneficial to treat them like strangers. In situations like this we can work together and save each other some hassle.
Heh, imagine if WoW showed up at a new project and we had this attitude... "Give the man a chance! He might have reformed!" :)
cheers Brianna _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Brianna Laugher wrote:
BTW cf. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Staff_lounge#Banned_WP_editor_Primeti... which seems to have been accepted without question. That's more the kind of thing I was talking about...(again this is more copyright related, not social behaviour, and lazyquasar made a good point that in some cases people can "start anew".) I mean yes each project has its own community but I don't think it's beneficial to treat them like strangers. In situations like this we can work together and save each other some hassle.
Heh, imagine if WoW showed up at a new project and we had this attitude... "Give the man a chance! He might have reformed!" :)
cheers Brianna
Look, I'm not saying that actions on one Wikimedia project should be ignored, but it is only "evidence" to help build a case against a user. You shouldn't have a knee jerk reaction and assume that bad actions are going to carry over from one project to the next. It is cause to investigate, however, and I have reviewed the edits of Zephraim Stark on Wikibooks in the past myself. And carried on conversations with him on talk pages and e-mails.
Things like open proxies and routinely abusive ip addresses (such as one IP address from an Indian internet bar that has caused a bunch of problems for Wikimedia projects) should be investigated and banned as appropriate. And have been by local admins on Wikibooks. That is my point as well, that Jimbo didn't need to perform this micromanagement activity. A warning to watch out for this user would have been more than sufficient. A note by admins from Wikipedia would have been more than sufficient, if they felt it was of sufficient merit to warn other Wikimedia sister projects.
This is one more case where I say trust the community to get it right, as extreme micromanagement by the WMF board is going to simply cause problems in the future.
Brianna Laugher wrote:
BTW cf.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Staff_lounge#Banned_WP_editor_Primeti...
which seems to have been accepted without question.
Great! The difference between Primetime and Zephram Stark is that someone came to en.wikibooks and explained what the trouble was with Primetime.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Blocking Zephram Stark from Wikibooks before he causes trouble is more or less a no-brainer.
This is like saying "the ocean exists" to someone who does not live near the coast.
Except that unlike the ocean, [[User:Zephram Stark]] is not famous. I knew this user only as a Wikibooks user with a blocked account on Wikimedia Commons (knowing not much about the trouble on Commons). I do not go visit Wikinews, Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikispecies, Wiktionary and learn the names of all the users who are having infinite blocks. This is good, because that means that all those annoying users who need infinite blocks are not distracting me, nor are they successful in stealing my attention.
So for those who say that it is obvious to block this user, I respond, "Why?"
-- [[User:Kernigh]] http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org